1. One of the projects is supposed to be ARM: How do we know that NX is x86 and not ARM?
2. One of the projects is supposed to be "beyond gaming" but not VR, which complicates things. Without that, we would assume PS4K this year, then XB2 next year. The issue with both of these, of course, is platform compatibility and consequences thereof, since the most obvious technical improvements could not or should not be made if backward compatibility is needed. And Microsoft may be unhappy with the way things turned out from their last deal with AMD.
3. These are "Semicustom" designs, in which AMD supplies existing technology and the customer pays as NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering) for customization work as it occurs. The customer thus owns the resulting chip, but not the original IP. Since AMD has only a minimal project investment, with a guaranteed long-term contract and no marketing at all, the small margins involved still represent a substantial ROI.
4. How is a "shrink" NOT a "design win"? First of all, going from 28nm to 14nm is not classic shrink territory; it is certainly not automatic. The required healthy payments, and the decision to start, essentially mean a new project. But how is that project structurally different from the original "design win," and why would it not be described in the same way?